DOCSLIB.ORG

Aspects of the Theory of Morphology (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Aspects of the Theory of Morphology ≥ Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 146 Editors Walter Bisang Hans Henrich Hock Werner Winter Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York Aspects of the Theory of Morphology by Igor Mel’cˇuk edited by David Beck Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin. The publication of this volume was made possible by the generous financial support of (i) the Alexander Humboldt Foundation, Germany and (ii) the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, through the Aid to Scholarly Publications Programme, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Țȍ Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Mel’cˇuk, Igor, 1932Ϫ Aspects of the theory of morphology / by Igor Mel’cˇuk ; edited by David Beck. p. cm. Ϫ (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs ; 146) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-3-11-017711-4 (hardcover : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 3-11-017711-0 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Grammar, Comparative and general Ϫ Morphology. I. Beck, David, 1963Ϫ II. Title. III. Series. P241.M45 2006 4151.9Ϫdc22 2005026841 ISBN-13: 978-3-11-017711-4 ISBN-10: 3-11-017711-0 ISSN 1861-4302 Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at Ͻhttp://dnb.ddb.deϾ. ” Copyright 2006 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechan- ical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, with- out permission in writing from the publisher. Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin Typesetting: medionet AG, Berlin Printed in Germany. Contents Phonemic/phonetic transcription adopted in this book xiii Abbreviations and notations xv Introduction 1 The problem stated: A conceptual system for linguistic morphology 3 1. The goal of the book: Definitions of some important linguistic concepts 3 2. The theoretical framework of the book: Meaning-Text Theory 4 3. Characteristics of the linguistic definitions proposed 11 3.1. Substantive aspect of the definitions 12 3.2. Formal aspect of the definitions 16 4. Intermediate concepts used in this book 18 5. The structure of the book 24 6. Acknowledgments 26 Notes 26 PART I. The Syntax-Morphology interface 29 Chapter 1. Agreement, government, congruence 31 1. Introductory remarks 31 2. Three auxiliary concepts 32 2.1. Morphological dependency 32 2.1.1. Notation 33 2.1.2. The concept of morphological dependency: Definition 1.1 34 2.1.3. Comments on Definition 1.1 36 2.2. Agreement class 47 2.2.1. The concept of agreement class: Definition 1.2 47 2.2.2. Comments on Definition 1.2 48 2.2.3. Minimality of an agreement class 53 2.2.4. Agreement class vs. lexical class 54 vi Contents 2.3. A mirroring inflectional category: Definition 1.3 55 2.4. Relationships between the concepts ‘agreement class,’ ‘mirroring category,’ and ‘agreement’ 57 3. Agreement 57 3.1. The concept of agreement: Definition 1.4 58 3.2. Comments on Definition 1.4 58 3.3. Examples of agreement 66 4. Government 83 4.1. The concept of government: Definition 1.5 83 4.2. Comments on Definition 1.5 83 4.3. Examples of government 87 5. Congruence 89 5.1. The concept of congruence: Definition 1.6 89 5.2. Comments on Definition 1.6 89 6. Summing up 92 6.1. Agreement vs. government 92 6.2. Agreement and government in one wordform 93 6.3. Agreement/government and semantic dependencies 95 6.4. Agreement/government and syntactic dependencies 95 6.5. Should agreement/government be called syntactic or morphological? 97 6.6. Other types of morphological dependencies? 98 Notes 98 PART II. Morphology proper 107 II.1. Morphological signifieds 109 Chapter 2. Case 110 1. Introductory remarks 110 2. Three concepts of Case: Definitions 2.1 – 2.3 111 3. Comments on Definitions 2.1 – 2.3 114 4. English ‘Saxon Genitive’ 120 5. External autonomy of case forms 126 6. Do casesI.1b have meanings? 134 7. Taxonomy of casesI.1b 138 8. Internal autonomy of casesI.1b 150 9. Illustrative inventory of possible casesI.1b 151 10. The Russian genitive in numeral phrases: a problematic situation 158 Contents vii 11. ‘Multiple Case’ 159 11.1. Nominal agreement in caseI.2a 159 11.2. Hypostasis 166 11.3. Semantic-syntactic caseI.1b combinations 167 11.4. Compound casesI.1b 167 11.5. CasesI.1a in group inflection 167 12. Main tendencies in the study of case 169 Notes 173 Chapter 3. Voice 181 1. Introductory remarks 181 2. Auxiliary concepts: Definitions 3.1 – 3.6 182 3. The concept of voice: Definition 3.7 190 4. Calculus of possible voices in bi-valent verbs 194 4.1. General remarks 194 4.2. Voice grammemes 199 4.3. Comments on specific topics: passive, middle, reciprocal, impersonal 209 4.3.1. The passive voice 209 4.3.2. The middle voice 213 4.3.3. Is the reciprocal a voice? 215 4.3.4. The term impersonal as applied to voices 216 5. Voice in mono- and multi-valent verbs 218 5.1. Monovalent verbs 219 5.2. Multivalent verbs 221 5.2.1. Different promotional (= full) passives 221 5.2.2. The 2/3-permutative 223 5.2.3. The indirect reflexive 226 6. Four distinct voice categories 227 7. Four infl ectional categories related to voice 230 7.1. Transitivization 230 7.1.1. Introductory remarks 230 7.1.2. Concept of transitivization 231 7.1.3. Illustrations of transitivization 233 7.1.4. ‘Antipassive’ 235 7.2. Verbal focus 236 7.3. Affectedness 242 7.4 Inversion 244 viii Contents 8. Conclusions 248 8.1. Complex voice-like categories 248 8.2. ‘Semantic impurity’ of actual voices 249 8.3. Fickle differences between categories 250 Notes 251 Chapter 4. Case, basic verbal construction, and voice in Maasai 263 1. Introductory remarks 263 2. Case in Maasai 263 2.1. The primary data 263 2.2. The problem stated 266 2.3. The proposal: Changing the names of the cases 267 3. The basic verbal construction in Maasai 269 4. Voice in Maasai 276 Notes 283 II.2. Morphological signifiers 287 Chapter 5. Morphological processes 288 1. Introductory remarks 288 2. The characterization of morphological process 289 2.1. Auxiliary concepts 289 2.2. The concept of morphological process 290 2.3. The inherently additive character of morphological processes 292 3. Typology of morphological processes 294 3.1. Major types of linguistic signs 295 3.2. Major types of morphological processes 297 3.3. Brief survey of morphological processes 298 3.3.1. Compounding 298 3.3.2. Affixation 299 3.3.3. Suprafixation 301 3.3.4. Replication3 301 3.3.5. Modification 302 3.3.6. Conversion3 304 3.4. Hierarchies of morphological processes 306 3.5. Morphological processes and language types 308 4. A special variety of morphological processes: zero processes 308 5. Three current fallacies concerning morphological processes 309 5.1. Suppletion is not a morphological process 309 Contents ix 5.2. Word-creating devices are not morphological processes 310 5.3. Combinations of morphological processes, or multiple exponence 310 6. Non-uniqueness of morphological solutions: methodological principles 313 6.1. A morphological process or a (meaningless) morphological means? 313 6.2. Which morphological process? 315 Notes 318 II.3. Morphological syntactics 321 Chapter 6. Gender and noun class 322 1. Introductory remarks 322 2. Gender1 vs. Class1 323 3. Gender1 324 3.1. The concept of gender1: Definition 6.1 324 3.2. Comments on Definition 6.1 325 3.3. Examples of gender1 systems 330 3.4. Semantic motivation of genders1 334 3.5. Gender1 neutralization 336 3.6. Marked/unmarked character of genders1 339 3.7. Problematic genders1: two case studies 341 3.8. Double noun classification 345 4. (Noun) class1 346 4.1. The concept of noun class1: Definition 6.2 346 4.2. Comments on Definition 6.2 347 4.3. Examples of class1 systems 349 4.4. Establishing a noun class1 system: a methodological problem 367 5. Genders1, classes1 or neither? Three case studies 371 6. Syntactic genders1/classes1 vs. morphological genders1/classes1 378 Notes 379 II.4. Morphological signs 383 Chapter 7. Morph and morpheme 384 1. Introductory remarks 384 2. Definitions of the concepts ‘morph’ and ‘morpheme’ 384 3. Comments on morphs and morphemes 389 x Contents 3.1. Morph and quasimorph 389 3.2. Morpheme 390 3.3. Allomorphs 397 4. Discussion of the concepts introduced 399 4.1. What is the use of the proposed concept of morpheme? 399 4.2. Fused expression of two or more morphemes: megamorph 400 4.3. A difficulty in the definition of morpheme 401 Notes 403 Chapter 8. Suppletion 405 1. Introductory remarks 405 2. The concept of suppletion 405 2.1. An informal characterization of suppletion 405 2.2. A rigorous definition of suppletion: Definition 8.3 407 2.3. Examples of suppletion 410 2.4. Comments on Definition 8.3 412 2.4.1. The rationale for the conditions in Definition 8.3 413 2.4.2. Definition 8.3 vs. traditional definitions of suppletion 415 2.4.3.
Recommended publications
  • The Strategy of Case-Marking

    The Strategy of Case-Marking

    Case marking strategies Helen de Hoop & Andrej Malchukov1 Radboud University Nijmegen DRAFT January 2006 Abstract Two strategies of case marking in natural languages are discussed. These are defined as two violable constraints whose effects are shown to converge in the case of differential object marking but diverge in the case of differential subject marking. The strength of the case bearing arguments will be shown to be of utmost importance for case marking as well as voice alternations. The strength of arguments can be viewed as a function of their discourse prominence. The analysis of the case marking patterns we find cross-linguistically is couched in a bidirectional OT analysis. 1. Assumptions In this section we wish to put forward our three basic assumptions: (1) In ergative-absolutive systems ergative case is assigned to the first argument x of a two-place relation R(x,y). (2) In nominative-accusative systems accusative case is assigned to the second argument y of a two-place relation R(x,y). (3) Morphologically unmarked case can be the absence of case. The first two assumptions deal with the linking between the first (highest) and second (lowest) argument in a transitive sentence and the type of case marking. For reasons of convenience, we will refer to these arguments quite sloppily as the subject and the object respectively, although we are aware of the fact that the labels subject and object may not be appropriate in all contexts, dependent on how they are actually defined. In many languages, ergative and accusative case are assigned only or mainly in transitive sentences, while in intransitive sentences ergative and accusative case are usually not assigned.
  • Definiteness Determined by Syntax: a Case Study in Tagalog 1 Introduction

    Definiteness Determined by Syntax: a Case Study in Tagalog 1 Introduction

    Definiteness determined by syntax: A case study in Tagalog1 James N. Collins Abstract Using Tagalog as a case study, this paper provides an analysis of a cross-linguistically well attested phenomenon, namely, cases in which a bare NP’s syntactic position is linked to its interpretation as definite or indefinite. Previous approaches to this phenomenon, including analyses of Tagalog, appeal to specialized interpretational rules, such as Diesing’s Mapping Hypothesis. I argue that the patterns fall out of general compositional principles so long as type-shifting operators are available to the gram- matical system. I begin by weighing in a long-standing issue for the semantic analysis of Tagalog: the interpretational distinction between genitive and nominative transitive patients. I show that bare NP patients are interpreted as definites if marked with nominative case and as narrow scope indefinites if marked with genitive case. Bare NPs are understood as basically predicative; their quantificational force is determined by their syntactic position. If they are syntactically local to the selecting verb, they are existentially quantified by the verb itself. If they occupy a derived position, such as the subject position, they must type-shift in order to avoid a type-mismatch, generating a definite interpretation. Thus the paper develops a theory of how the position of an NP is linked to its interpretation, as well as providing a compositional treatment of NP-interpretation in a language which lacks definite articles but demonstrates other morphosyntactic strategies for signaling (in)definiteness. 1 Introduction Not every language signals definiteness via articles. Several languages (such as Russian, Kazakh, Korean etc.) lack articles altogether.
  • Romani Syntactic Typology Evangelia Adamou, Yaron Matras

    Romani Syntactic Typology Evangelia Adamou, Yaron Matras

    Romani Syntactic Typology Evangelia Adamou, Yaron Matras To cite this version: Evangelia Adamou, Yaron Matras. Romani Syntactic Typology. Yaron Matras; Anton Tenser. The Palgrave Handbook of Romani Language and Linguistics, Springer, pp.187-227, 2020, 978-3-030-28104- 5. 10.1007/978-3-030-28105-2_7. halshs-02965238 HAL Id: halshs-02965238 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-02965238 Submitted on 13 Oct 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Romani syntactic typology Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras 1. State of the art This chapter presents an overview of the principal syntactic-typological features of Romani dialects. It draws on the discussion in Matras (2002, chapter 7) while taking into consideration more recent studies. In particular, we draw on the wealth of morpho- syntactic data that have since become available via the Romani Morpho-Syntax (RMS) database.1 The RMS data are based on responses to the Romani Morpho-Syntax questionnaire recorded from Romani speaking communities across Europe and beyond. We try to take into account a representative sample. We also take into consideration data from free-speech recordings available in the RMS database and the Pangloss Collection.
  • Polyvalent Case, Geometric Hierarchies, and Split Ergativity

    Polyvalent Case, Geometric Hierarchies, and Split Ergativity

    [For Jackie Bunting, Sapna Desai, Robert Peachey, Chris Straughn, and Zuzana Tomkova (eds.), (2006) Proceedings of the 42nd annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, Ill.] Polyvalent case, geometric hierarchies, and split ergativity JASON MERCHANT University of Chicago Prominence hierarchy effects such as the animacy hierarchy and definiteness hierarchy have been a puzzle for formal treatments of case since they were first described systematically in Silverstein 1976. Recently, these effects have received more sustained attention from generative linguists, who have sought to capture them in treatments grounded in well-understood mechanisms for case assignment cross-linguistically. These efforts have taken two broad directions. In the first, Aissen 1999, 2003 has integrated the effects elegantly into a competition model of grammar using OT formalisms, where iconicity effects emerge from constraint conjunctions between constraints on fixed universal hierarchies (definiteness, animacy, person, grammatical role) and a constraint banning overt morphological expression of case. The second direction grows out of the work of Jelinek and Diesing, and is found most articulated in Jelinek 1993, Jelinek and Carnie 2003, and Carnie 2005. This work takes as its starting point the observation that word order is sometimes correlated with the hierarchies as well, and works backwards from that to conclusions about phrase structure geometries. In this paper, I propose a particular implementation of this latter direction, and explore its consequences for our understanding of the nature of case assignment. If hierarchy effects are due to positional differences in phrase structures, then, I argue, the attested cross-linguistic differences fall most naturally out if the grammars of these languages countenance polyvalent case—that is, assignment of more than one case value to a single nominal phrase.
  • Definiteness and Determinacy

    Definiteness and Determinacy

    Linguistics and Philosophy manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Definiteness and Determinacy Elizabeth Coppock · David Beaver the date of receipt and acceptance should be inserted later Abstract This paper distinguishes between definiteness and determinacy. Defi- niteness is seen as a morphological category which, in English, marks a (weak) uniqueness presupposition, while determinacy consists in denoting an individual. Definite descriptions are argued to be fundamentally predicative, presupposing uniqueness but not existence, and to acquire existential import through general type-shifting operations that apply not only to definites, but also indefinites and possessives. Through these shifts, argumental definite descriptions may become either determinate (and thus denote an individual) or indeterminate (functioning as an existential quantifier). The latter option is observed in examples like `Anna didn't give the only invited talk at the conference', which, on its indeterminate reading, implies that there is nothing in the extension of `only invited talk at the conference'. The paper also offers a resolution of the issue of whether posses- sives are inherently indefinite or definite, suggesting that, like indefinites, they do not mark definiteness lexically, but like definites, they typically yield determinate readings due to a general preference for the shifting operation that produces them. Keywords definiteness · descriptions · possessives · predicates · type-shifting We thank Dag Haug, Reinhard Muskens, Luca Crniˇc,Cleo Condoravdi, Lucas
  • Arxiv:2106.08037V1 [Cs.CL] 15 Jun 2021 Alternative Ways the World Could Be

    Arxiv:2106.08037V1 [Cs.CL] 15 Jun 2021 Alternative Ways the World Could Be

    The Possible, the Plausible, and the Desirable: Event-Based Modality Detection for Language Processing Valentina Pyatkin∗ Shoval Sadde∗ Aynat Rubinstein Bar Ilan University Bar Ilan University Hebrew University of Jerusalem [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Paul Portner Reut Tsarfaty Georgetown University Bar Ilan University [email protected] [email protected] Abstract (1) a. We presented a paper at ACL’19. Modality is the linguistic ability to describe b. We did not present a paper at ACL’20. events with added information such as how de- sirable, plausible, or feasible they are. Modal- The propositional content p =“present a paper at ity is important for many NLP downstream ACL’X” can be easily verified for sentences (1a)- tasks such as the detection of hedging, uncer- (1b) by looking up the proceedings of the confer- tainty, speculation, and more. Previous studies ence to (dis)prove the existence of the relevant pub- that address modality detection in NLP often p restrict modal expressions to a closed syntac- lication. The same proposition is still referred to tic class, and the modal sense labels are vastly in sentences (2a)–(2d), but now in each one, p is different across different studies, lacking an ac- described from a different perspective: cepted standard. Furthermore, these senses are often analyzed independently of the events that (2) a. We aim to present a paper at ACL’21. they modify. This work builds on the theoreti- b. We want to present a paper at ACL’21. cal foundations of the Georgetown Gradable Modal Expressions (GME) work by Rubin- c.
  • Grammatical Categories and Word Classes Pdf

    Grammatical Categories and Word Classes Pdf

    Grammatical categories and word classes pdf Continue 목차 qualities and phrases about qualities and dalakhin scared qualities are afraid of both hard long only the same, identical adjectives and common adverbs phrases and common adverbs comparison and believe adverbs class sayings of place and movement outside away and away from returning inside outside close up the shifts of time and frequency easily confused the words above or more? Across, over or through? Advice or advice? Affect or affect? Every mother of every? Every mother wholly? Allow, allow or allow? Almost or almost? Single, lonely, alone? Along or side by side? Already, still or yet? Also, as well as or too? Alternative (ly), alternative (ly) though or though? Everything or together? Amount, number or quantity? Any more or any more? Anyone, anyone or anything? Apart from or with the exception? arise or rise? About or round? Stir or provoke? As or like? Because or since then? When or when? Did she go or she?. Start or start? Next to or next? Between or between? Born or endured? Bring, take and bring can, can or may? Classic or classic? Come or go? Looking or looking? Make up, compose or compose? Content or content? Different from or different from or different from? Do you do or make? Down or down or down? During or for? All or all? East or East; North or North? Economic or economic? Efficient or effective? Older, older or older, older? The end or the end? Private or specific? Every one or everybody? Except or with exception? Expect, hope or wait? An experience or an experiment? Fall or fall? Far or far? Farther, farther or farther, farther? Farther (but not farther) fast, fast or fast? Fell or did you feel? Female or female; male or male? Finally, finally, finally or finally? First, first or at first? Fit or suit? Next or next? For mother since then? Forget or leave? Full or full? Funny or funny? Do you go or go? Grateful or thankful? Listen or listen (to)? High or long? Historical or historical? A house or a house? How is he...? Or what is ..
  • PARASITIC MIRATIVITY of ENGLISH USE in COLIN TREVORROWS MOVIE “JURASSIC WORLD” Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of Th

    PARASITIC MIRATIVITY of ENGLISH USE in COLIN TREVORROWS MOVIE “JURASSIC WORLD” Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of Th

    PARASITIC MIRATIVITY OF ENGLISH USE IN COLIN TREVORROWS MOVIE “JURASSIC WORLD” Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Humaniora in English and Literature Department of Faculty of Adab and Humanities of UIN Alauddin Makassar By MUJI RETNO Reg. No. 40300111080 ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT ADAB AND HUMANITIES FACULTY ALAUDDIN STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MAKASSAR 2016 PARASITIC MIRATIVITY OF ENGLISH USE IN COLIN TREVORROW’S MOVIE “JURASSIC WORLD” Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Humaniora in English and Literature Department of Faculty of Adab and Humanities of UIN Alauddin Makassar By MUJI RETNO Reg. No. 40300111080 ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT ADAB AND HUMANITIES FACULTY ALAUDDIN STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MAKASSAR 2016 i MOTTO “EDUCATION IS WHAT REMAINS AFTER ONE HAS FORGOTTEN WHAT ONE HAS LEARNED IN SCHOOL.” (Albert Eistein) “EDUCATION IS A PROGRESSIVE DISCOVERY OF OUR OWN IGNORENCE.” (Charlie Chaplin) “EVERY THE LAST STEP INEVITABLY HAS THE FIRST STEP” (Muji Retno) ii ACKNOWLEDGE All praises to Allah who has blessed, guided and given the health to the researcherduring writing this thesis. Then, the researcherr would like to send invocation and peace to Prophet Muhammad SAW peace be upon him, who has guided the people from the bad condition to the better life. The researcher realizes that in writing and finishing this thesis, there are many people that have provided their suggestion, advice, help and motivation. Therefore, the researcher would like to express thanks and highest appreciation to all of them. For the first, the researcher gives special gratitude to her parents, Masir Hadis and Jumariah Yaha who have given their loves, cares, supports and prayers in every single time.
  • Some Observations on the Hebrew Desiderative Construction – a Dependency-Based Account in Terms of Catenae1

    Some Observations on the Hebrew Desiderative Construction – a Dependency-Based Account in Terms of Catenae1

    Thomas Groß Some Observations on the Hebrew Desiderative Construction – A Dependency-Based Account in Terms of Catenae1 Abstract The Modern Hebrew (MH) desiderative construction must obey four conditions: 1. A subordinate clause headed by the clitic še= ‘that’ must be present. 2. The verb in the subordinate clause must be marked with future tense. 3. The grammatical properties genus, number, and person tend to be specified, i.e. if the future tense affix is underspecified, material tends to appear that aids specification, if contextual recovery is unavailable. 4. The units of form that make up the constructional meaning of the desiderative must qualify as a catena. A catena is a dependency-based unit of form, the parts of which are immediately continuous in the vertical dimension. The description of the individual parts of the desiderative must address trans-, pre-, and suffixes, and cliticization. Catena-based morphology is representational, monostratal, dependency-, construction-, and piece-based. 1. Purpose, means and claims The main purpose of this paper is to analyze the Hebrew desiderative construction. This construction is linguistically interesting and challenging for a number of reasons. 1. It is a periphrastic construction, with fairly transparent compositionality. 2. It is transclausal, i.e. some parts of the construction reside in the main clause, and others in the subordinated clause. The complementizer is also part of the construction. 3. The construction consists of more than one word, but it does not qualify as a constituent. Rather the construction cuts into words. 4. Two theoretically 1 I want to thank Outi Bat-El (Tel Aviv University) and three anonymous reviewers for their help and advice.
  • Transparency in Language a Typological Study

    Transparency in Language a Typological Study

    Transparency in language A typological study Published by LOT phone: +31 30 253 6111 Trans 10 3512 JK Utrecht e-mail: [email protected] The Netherlands http://www.lotschool.nl Cover illustration © 2011: Sanne Leufkens – image from the performance ‘Celebration’ ISBN: 978-94-6093-162-8 NUR 616 Copyright © 2015: Sterre Leufkens. All rights reserved. Transparency in language A typological study ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. dr. D.C. van den Boom ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties ingestelde commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Agnietenkapel op vrijdag 23 januari 2015, te 10.00 uur door Sterre Cécile Leufkens geboren te Delft Promotiecommissie Promotor: Prof. dr. P.C. Hengeveld Copromotor: Dr. N.S.H. Smith Overige leden: Prof. dr. E.O. Aboh Dr. J. Audring Prof. dr. Ö. Dahl Prof. dr. M.E. Keizer Prof. dr. F.P. Weerman Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen i Acknowledgments When I speak about my PhD project, it appears to cover a time-span of four years, in which I performed a number of actions that resulted in this book. In fact, the limits of the project are not so clear. It started when I first heard about linguistics, and it will end when we all stop thinking about transparency, which hopefully will not be the case any time soon. Moreover, even though I might have spent most time and effort to ‘complete’ this project, it is definitely not just my work. Many people have contributed directly or indirectly, by thinking about transparency, or thinking about me.
  • Issues in Minority Languages and Language Development Studies in Nigeria a Festschrift in Honour of Andrew Haruna

    Issues in Minority Languages and Language Development Studies in Nigeria a Festschrift in Honour of Andrew Haruna

    Issues in minority languages and language development studies in Nigeria A Festschrift in honour of Andrew Haruna 199 Ali Usman Umar Department of Nigerian Languages Federal University of Lafia ° ° ° Infixes and Infixation Processes in Hausa Morphology Abstract The aim of the paper is to investigate the phenomena of Hausa infixes and infixation. While the former refers to those affixal morphemes that are inserted within roots/stems/bases so as to bring about new word-forms, the latter has to do with the processes through which the infixes are to be realized. In order for the aforementioned to be detected, the study brings closely the data-driven outputs of Hausa infixes and empirically observes their nature and behavior as they are processed. In other words, the analysis of the data is based on the descriptive approach. Thus, the study attempts to account reviews on general outlook of Hausa infixation processes. It also highlights some points of arguments debated by some Hausaists on the manifestation or realization of infixes in Hausa. The resultant facts of this investigation reveal that there are a fairly considerable number of infixal morphemes which are functional and productive for inflectional, derivational and/or reduplicative purposes in the language. These infixes are sub-grouped into three headings, namely: vocalic, consonantal and syllabic infixation as it had been the norm with most affixing languages such as Semitic and Berber of the Afro-Asiatic phylum. Finally, the study discovers additional infixal morphemes which were not found in the previous works; these include: -c-, -y2aa-, -CG-, as well as those infixes that are used in Hausa language game.
  • Calculus of Possibilities As a Technique in Linguistic Typology

    Calculus of Possibilities As a Technique in Linguistic Typology

    Calculus of possibilities as a technique in linguistic typology Igor Mel’uk 1. The problem stated: A unified conceptual system in linguistics A central problem in the relationship between typology and the writing of individual grammars is that of developing a cross-linguistically viable con- ceptual system and a corresponding terminological framework. I will deal with this problem in three consecutive steps: First, I state the problem and sketch a conceptual system that I have put forward for typological explora- tions in morphology (Sections 1 and 2). Second, I propose a detailed illus- tration of this system: a calculus of grammatical voices in natural languages (Section 3). And third, I apply this calculus (that is, the corresponding con- cepts) in two particular case studies: an inflectional category known as an- tipassive and the grammatical voice in French (Sections 4 and 5). In the latter case, the investigation shows that even for a language as well de- scribed as French a rigorously standardized typological framework can force us to answer questions that previous descriptions have failed to re- solve. I start with the following three assumptions: 1) One of the most pressing tasks of today’s linguistics is description of particular languages, the essential core of this work being the writing of grammars and lexicons. A linguist sets out to describe a language as pre- cisely and exhaustively as possible; this includes its semantics, syntax, morphology and phonology plus (within the limits of time and funds avail- able) its lexicon. 2) Such a description is necessarily carried out in terms of some prede- fined concepts – such as lexical unit, semantic actant, syntactic role, voice, case, phoneme, etc.